Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

36 Me. 47

Thompson v. Moore

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1853

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1853-07-01

On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Shepley, C. J., presiding. Assumpsit. The defendant owned a store in Newfield, and had a small lot of old goods remaining in it, which he authorized one John M. Thompson to sell for him. John M. Thompson then went to Boston, and purchased, upon his own credit, goods amounting to twelve hundred dollars.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1889

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Wells, J. —

¶1The defendant was not a creditor of John M. Thompson, and had no right to question the sale made by him to the plaintiff. Such sale was valid between the parties, although a fraud might have been intended against the creditors of the vendor. Nichols v. Patten, 18 Maine, 231. But a compromise was made with those creditors, and a mortgage given to secure their debt. The mortgage was subsequently purchased by the defendant, and he became authorized to hold the goods mortgaged, unless they were redeemed by the plaintiff, the mortgager.

¶2If the mortgaged property is not redeemed within sixty days after the breach of the condition, the title of the mortgagee becomes absolute. But he may extend the time of performance, and waive the forfeiture. Green v. Dingley, 24 Maine, 131. Flanders v. Barstow, 18 Maine, 357; Greenleaf’s Ev. § 304. It appears that the defendant sold a part of the goods mortgaged within sixty days after the mortgage became payable, and before his title had become absolute. This conduct would imply an understanding; that a disposition should be made of the property different from that prescribed by law. There does not appear to be any error in the instructions. Exceptions overruled.

Howard, Rice and Hathaway, J. J., concurred.
/36/me/47 · .json · Public domain